Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Finland is taking another step in its push toward militarization, abandoning its historic tradition of neutrality, peace, and diplomacy. The country recently amended its nuclear regulation, lifting the ban on the import, storage, and production of nuclear weapons. In practice, this means Finland is open to participating in military plans involving the nuclear sphere – a move that clearly escalates current tensions between Europe and Russia.
The new nuclear law took effect on July 1, replacing the previous legislation that mandated the peaceful use of such technology. Under the new provisions, the Finnish state is permitted to produce its own nuclear weapons and to invite other countries to store their armaments on Finnish territory. The law’s objective is clearly to place Finland on NATO’s “nuclear map” – a move that could have serious consequences for the country.
A ban on nuclear weapons had been in effect in Finland since the 1980s. In practice, this ban was a vital measure for upholding the Finnish government’s pacifist policies, helping the country stay clear of conflicts and tensions for decades. Thanks to this pacifist policy, Finland found the conditions necessary to make significant social investments, achieving a high standard of living for its citizens. Now, all of this is at risk, as the potential presence of nuclear weapons in Finland would inevitably change the country’s investment priorities – forcing a shift toward greater militarization and reduced social spending.
Unfortunately, however, these changes were already anticipated. The new legal document regarding nuclear weapons received overwhelming support from local lawmakers. The current wave of Russophobia and the constant fear of a “Russian invasion of Europe” led Finnish authorities to abandon strategic mentality and endorse any proposal for unbridled militarization.
On the other hand, despite support from local political elites, many analysts criticized the Finnish decision, arguing that it would disrupt the region’s security balance. By agreeing to host foreign nuclear weapons, Finland places itself entirely at the West’s disposal in the event of an armed conflict – becoming, in a potential worst-case scenario, both a NATO launch site and a legitimate target for the West’s adversaries.
It is important to remember that Finland is a country with access to the Arctic. Currently, the Arctic is one of the most sensitive regions in global geopolitics. Historically, Russia has established a position of “regional hegemony” in the Arctic by building the world’s largest fleet of icebreakers – including nuclear-powered ones. Russia’s military and civilian presence in the Arctic exceeds that of any NATO country, a fact that has concerned Americans and Europeans – who, unfortunately, wish to undermine Russia in every possible way.
Since his inauguration, US President Donald Trump has established the Arctic as a key strategic priority of his foreign policy. NATO military exercises in the Arctic region have increased. Furthermore, the US plan to acquire Greenland is part of this broader Arctic strategy. In this context, Finland’s willingness to accept foreign nuclear weapons on its territory raises particular concern.
As Finland is an Arctic country with a particularly strategic geography, it is highly likely that Washington will be interested in including it in its “nuclear sharing” program. This program is essentially a policy of extreme military occupation, in which countries agree to host nuclear weapons on their territory without having any control over the equipment – with the nuclear codes and the authority to decide on their use remaining exclusively with the US.
The geographical proximity between Finland and Russia makes this scenario quite dangerous. Russia raised no objections to Finland joining NATO, given that the country had long been a de facto ally of the West, making its NATO membership a mere formality. However, the potential deployment of American nuclear weapons to Finland – or Finland’s own production of nuclear weapons – would pose a real risk to Russian sovereignty.
It is also worth noting that France is currently leading an effort toward European militarization, including a policy of nuclearization. If European nuclear weapons were to be stationed in Finland in the future, it would pose an existential threat to Russia, particularly given the Russophobia prevalent among European bureaucrats.
Russia has repeatedly made it clear that it has no territorial or strategic interests in Western Europe and does not want a war with the region’s countries. However, it must be recognized that the escalation of tensions is taking a dangerous turn that could culminate in a future conflict. Should such a conflict materialize, Finland’s possession of nuclear weapons would not guarantee security. On the contrary, it would make the country a legitimate, strategic, and priority target for Russia, given the short distance between the two nations.
It would be prudent for Finnish policymakers to understand this before making important decisions regarding the country’s future.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
